Posted on 12/06/2004 5:45:10 AM PST by billybudd
I'm somewhat befuddled as to why objectivists seem so enthralled with The Incredibles. I suppose some of it has to do with some press coverage labelling the movie "Randian". It is understandable for objectivists to bask in the national spotlight that so rarely shines on them.
Objectivists seem to be confused by The Incredibles. What underlies their confusion with this movie is their reflexive attempt to fit cultural events into the narrative of Atlas Shrugged. The proper dichotomy should be, they argue, between the strong and the weak, the able and the incompetent. So it is not surprising that they should scratch their heads at a competing narrative: one of special people born with unearned gifts and of regular people who must make do with what they have. One of the regular people dares to rise above his station through hard work and innovation. As did Prometheus (an Ayn Rand favorite), this rogue attempts to bring the “fire of the gods” to man by means of a technology that gives everyone the Incredibles’ powers. For his impertinence, he is labelled a villain.
Now, I'm not arguing that Syndrome is not the villain - he is. That is how the writers have presented him, but that's not the point. The moral message of the movie lies beneath the superficialities of presentation, in the fundamental traits of its characters. Given their complaints about the false choice presented in this movie, one would expect objectivists to remain neutral in judging it on moral grounds. But, disturbingly, they are not. It's disturbing because, in a choice between a self-made innovator and a hero with innate powers, they side with the "hero". Instead of praising the American spirit of pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, they engage in royalty- and god-worship. Anyone familiar with objectivism would find this sickeningly ironic.
No offense, but it's just a cartoon. Not everything in life needs to be analyzed to death.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
He has it exactly backwards.
The moral message of the movie lies beneath the superficialities of presentation, in the fundamental traits of its characters. Given their complaints about the false choice presented in this movie, one would expect objectivists to remain neutral in judging it on moral grounds. But, disturbingly, they are not. It's disturbing because, in a choice between a self-made innovator and a hero with innate powers, they side with the "hero". Instead of praising the American spirit of pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, they engage in royalty- and god-worship.
The "Self-Made innovator" wants to use the machinery to make everything Egalitarian, not what Rand proposed. The Heroes are the can-do's and the evil little troll is the government bureaucrat....FCOL. Even my 6 year old got that.
"Choose again"
I was somewhat surprised that Brent Bozell had a column a couple weeks ago praising the movie quite highly and noting that it is appropriate for the whole family. I was surprised only because I hadn't seen him comment on movies before. I'd love to see it but we probably have to wait for DVD...
I don't think he is so much analyzing the movie as the psychology of the human reaction to it. Besides, he's wrong. People love Batman and he has no special powers. ;)
It was great. My Kids loved it.
It was a cute family-oriented flick.
I saw the movie and while I didn't think it was that great, I went to the theatre for some mindless entertainment. And that's what I got. I can't stand it when people read too much into things.
To note the error in this conclusion, merely subsititute the word 'government' for techonology. That is the message of the movie, the inherent wrongness of egalatarianism.
Rand did a creditable job of acknowledging the little guy in Atlas Shrugged (e.g. a mechanic in who's workmanlike motions she saw poetry). But the worship of the very talented was disturbing. It was less disturbing when I first read the book 20 years ago, and was pretty sure I was very talented.
Just a great, fun, cartoon based movie. Nothing more.
You're right. The author has it way-wrong. Syndrome's plan was not to make super-powers egalitarian. His plan was to use his technology to kill all others with super-powers, leaving only himself with power.
I agree, the writer is taking deconstruction too far here, but I agree that making Syndrome a bad guy in a sense picks on genius for getting too uppity and not knowing its (non) superhero place.
When did Howard Roark "earn" his architectural insight? He worked hard to develop the skills, but he was born with his talent. Peter Keating could never have been a Roark, no matter how much effort he put into it.
Rand's characters are effectively humanistic demi-gods.
Man, what I wouldn't give to be an unemployed blogger with hours and hours and hours of free time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.